frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should abortion be illegal?

Debate Information

I was wondering what anyone thinks about this.
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -   edited January 16
    Argument Topic: Abortion should NOT be illegal.

    The United States was founded on the principles of freedom & liberty for all, and we have become a very progressive nation. Making abortion an illegal act would be a violation of those principles and ignore the basic human rights of women, as well as freedom of choice. Besides, ignoring all political aspects, if parents that didn't want the children in the first place and are now forced to have them and care for them, we would see abuse, abandonment, and possibly murder rates go up. And would we really want children growing up with parents potentially make less than the living wage, god forbid they get ill and have to pay a costly hospital bill, on top of rising inflation and education costs?
    NomenclaturejackOakTownA
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 16
    Argument Topic: No

    If abortion was illegal the planet would become uninhabitable within just a few decades. There's already a massive overpopulation crisis as it is. In just over a century the world population has sky rocketed from 1.6 billion to just over 8 billion. That rate is literally unsustainable.
  • @just4fun

    The United States was founded on the principles of freedom & liberty for all, (Liberty and justice for all) and we have become a very progressive nation. Making abortion an illegal act (Abortion was found Illegal by the Supreme Court and never describe as a United States Constitutional Right by women or men. The connection to established justice was simply not found it was never proven before the courts of law not exist. There are many suspected reasons for this oversight though not relevant to sure and swift correction.) would be a violation of those principles and ignore the basic human rights of women, as well as freedom of choice. Besides, ignoring all political aspects, if parents that didn't want the children in the first place and are now forced to have them and care for them, we would see abuse, abandonment, and possibly murder rates go up. And would we really want children growing up with parents potentially make less than the living wage, God forbid they get ill and have to pay a costly hospital bill, on top of rising inflation and education costs?

    Making abortion legal by legislation of law could be a violation of both international law also a possible many state laws upon a person’s conviction based on doctor patient privacy. Abortion is not describable as a United States constitutional Right and a term such as female specific amputation is. Abortion was an international admission to crime brought into American legislation of law without correction to pending United States Constitutional rights violations. Quite frankly I feel it is a mistake to set any standard of law in which male counterpart to all females’ will now be encouraged to legally sue for invasion of medical privacy which dictates the course of pregnancy. While all females’ direct criminal allegations of sexual assault as the reasons to terminate medically life threatening immigration the larger and better connection to established justice of pregnancy.  


    Nomenclaturejust4fun
  • @Nomenclature

    Not if done under the more perfect union than law United States Constitutional Right. Female specific amputation is the correction to imperfect states of the union set by abortion. Describing all women in every nation as a assigned ambassador by Law of Nature. The laws that are addressing a women as a possible murder upon conviction with the admission like abortion do not govern the child as possible murder after an understanding made public that the process of termination may be self-defense for the mother’s life.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @just4fun
    we would see abuse, abandonment, and possibly murder rates go up.

    That's another good point. Forcing crackheads to have babies they don't want is obviously not going to result in a positive outcome for the children.

    just4fun
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Killing an innocent human life is the greater harm

    @just4fun
    No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else, and that is just what abortion does, it kills an innocent human life.  No one has the right to claim its there choice if they want to go on a killing spree.  Our rights have limits.  In the case of abortion, there are two competing interests, the interests of the woman and the interests of the child to her life.  While having to carry a child you do not want until viability is indeed a harm to the woman, taking the pre-born baby girls life is a greater harm.  She loses her very life.  Her life is not just disturbed and made uncomfortable, it is annihilated.   
    OakTownA
  •  There is a profound difference to insuring safe medical treatment for all woman as a United State of Law and policing alleged body control....  By law of nature some women may feel they do not have the control over her bodies they wish to have. By connection to established justice and law of nature all women are an ambassador the admission pervade in the word abortion does not apply to both parties of the possible crime.. 


  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Its not the woman's body that is killed in an abortion

    @John_C_87
    An important point to be made when people argue "its a woman's body", is that it is not the woman's body that dies in an abortion, but her unborn daughter's body.  A parent can't say his 2 year old is his body, so if he beats her to death its OK.  In the same way, we have to recognize that a human life is killed when an abortion happens.  

    Many who argue for unrestricted abortion minimize the human value of the unborn child.  They dehumanize her in some sense claiming she has lesser value than other human beings due to her size, location, age, development, or abilities.  Such arbitrary rationalizations are historically used by oppressors to rationalize their cruelty and victimization of their victims. 
  • @just_sayin
    An important point to be made when people argue "its a woman's body", is that it is not the woman's body that dies in an abortion, but her unborn daughter's body.
    Depends on what is seen as important.........As a group / united state so to speak the unborn are not held under a lingering threat of state law murder charges made by unlawful admissions of crimes......Right? In fact the unborn child is not addressed as being ably to commit the crime of murder against its mother like what takes place in both Nation's and states at all.

    So, what are the facts....a mother can face murder charges and the child which may kill her can never face murder charges. This is a violation of United States Constitutional Right even greater than the loss of privacy pointed out by Roe Versus Wade in 1973.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 16
    @just_sayin
    No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else, and that is just what abortion does, it kills an innocent human life.  No one has the right to claim its there choice if they want to go on a killing spree.

    These are just typical appeals to emotion using loaded language. Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts. Your fallacy is the assumption that death is the worst form of suffering and it is not. 

    Making abortion illegal would literally make life unsustainable on Earth. It would result in unprecedented mass suffering and famine. Your religious beliefs are not worth the extinction of the species. 

  • Argument Topic: It should be or at least it shouldn't be socially accepted

    I know that many people would be mad at me for this but I will still say what I think is right, my body my rules.

    The act of killing someone/something is extremely unethical, that fetus is created because of your action, hence it's your responsibility. If you don't want a child then take a pill or use condoms (I disagree with people who say "if you don't want a child then don't have sex" because I know that sex is instinctive and there are times that we can't fight that urge). There are things that can prevent you from having a child in your stomach in an ethical and cheaper way so why not take it? Why use the other way around? If you're fighting for abortion because you don't want others to dictate what you can and can't do with your body then I don't even want to have an argument with you.
  • These are just typical appeals to emotion using loaded language. Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts. Your fallacy is the assumption that death is the worst form of suffering and it is not.  Making abortion illegal would literally make life unsustainable on Earth. It would result in unprecedented mass suffering and famine. Your religious beliefs are not worth the extinction of the species. 

    Abortion has been illegal for Centuries..... It is not criminal enforced in a global united state of law.......It is not even globally judicially balanced law as only the mother can be charged by degrees of murder and the charge is based on an admission which is always illegal achieved....The State of Texas to hold a common defense towards the general welfare of United States Constitution would have required that a fetus be charged with murder before the states attempt to make abortion regulatable by Texas State law. They did not.

    What came first the malpractice of law or the lawyer?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    The State of Texas

    Is this the same state of Texas where they think giving guns to teachers is a good idea?

    just4funJohn_C_87DeeOakTownA
  • Is this the same state of Texas where they think giving guns to teachers is a good idea?

    No, it is the same state of Texas that didn't make it a crime for a fetus to kill is mother but wrote laws where it is a particular crime for a mother to kill a fetus / baby, knowing in advance both happen. Your off topic in that Comparison The point is the Supreme court has acted unconstitutionally and congress should move to have the Federal Courts here all cases of Female-Specific Amputation it is Federal matter not state matter of law the grievance is over jurisdiction women are ambassadors assigned by law of nature while this argument is about international property not slave, and the Federal Government holds the burnd and it holds it only with the Armed Services alone. 

  • SonofasonSonofason 428 Pts   -  
    @just4fun
    we would see abuse, abandonment, and possibly murder rates go up.

    That's another good point. Forcing crackheads to have babies they don't want is obviously not going to result in a positive outcome for the children.

    That's not your call.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Lol

    @Sonofason
    That's not your call.

    Not my call? You think it's your call to force a woman to have a baby, but not my call to explain the needless suffering it's going to cause? The double standards you religious nutters have are just out of this world.

    Dee
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -   edited January 19
    @Nomenclature

    "Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts. Your fallacy is the assumption that death is the worst form of suffering and it is not."

    In what world are we allowed to kill someone because we think their suffering may be great.  You may as well just said we're justified killing anyone we deem to be suffering.

    "Your honor, I did not murder this person because I know he'd rather be dead than alive". No one gets to make that choice for someone else.
    Sonofason
  • SonofasonSonofason 428 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    No one has the RIGHT to kill someone else, and that is just what abortion does, it kills an innocent human life.  No one has the right to claim its there choice if they want to go on a killing spree.

    These are just typical appeals to emotion using loaded language. Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts. Your fallacy is the assumption that death is the worst form of suffering and it is not. 

    Making abortion illegal would literally make life unsustainable on Earth. It would result in unprecedented mass suffering and famine. Your religious beliefs are not worth the extinction of the species. 

    Nah, we just need to kill everyone over 55.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 19
    @MichaelElpers
    In what world are we allowed to kill someone because we think their suffering may be great.

    We're not talking about a someone. We're talking about a potential someone. We're talking about a partially developed fetus without a central nervous system. It's literally one step away from wanting to ban condoms.

    The backwards logic of anti-abortion campaigners is just surreal. Not only do you want to force women to have babies they don't want, don't love and can't take proper care of, but you don't seem to comprehend that the planet is already in the middle of a massive overpopulation crisis. Banning abortion would lead to a complete planetary disaster. You're so utterly out of touch with reality that you're dangerous. You're sitting in a comfortable, middle-class bubble in the most affluent country in the world, completely oblivious to the fact that half of the 8 billion people on Earth are already living on less than 5 dollars a day. We can't take care of the people we have already and you dummies want to create even more? Nine million people starving to death every year isn't enough for you? You want to make it 20 million? Or 30 million?

    Christ.

    OakTownA
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    "We're not talking about a someone. We're talking about a potential someone."

    Not only are you wrong but you are already contradicting yourself.  The definition of a fetus is a beginning developmental stage of a human being; therefore it is a human being.

    Now for your contradiction.  Quote
    "Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts."

    You clearly said baby so you were indeed justifying killing human beings of you consider them to be suffering. Unless you don't think babies are humans?

    Yeah I don't comprehend the massive overpopulation crises they said that back when there was 1 billion people.  There are others due to recent birth rate drops that think to few births will cause crises.
    Most of the world's starvation is caused by corruption not inability of the planet to support them. Additionally your solution is kill people to solve your perceived notion of this problem.  For everyone who supports this I'm fine with thay as long as you are willing to be one of those people thay dies l.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 19
    @MichaelElpers
    Not only are you wrong but you are already contradicting yourself.

    I'm not wrong and I'm not contradicting myself. 

    The definition of a fetus is a beginning developmental stage of a human being

    God, this is just so mind-numbingly dumb. Really? An appeal to semantics? A caterpillar is a beginning developmental stage of a butterfly. That doesn't make a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly.

    therefore it is a human being.

    Therefore, you have the critical thinking skills of a wet plank of wood.

    Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts."

    You clearly said baby

    I'm talking about after it's born you dope. If brought to term a fetus eventually becomes a baby.

    Yeah I don't comprehend the massive overpopulation crises they said that back when there was 1 billion people.

    Oh, you were alive in the 19th century? That's nice.

    This is a pointless conversation because you lack the basic intelligence to understand we live on a planet with finite resources and those resources can only be stretched across a certain number of people. You are so utterly out of touch with reality it makes you a danger to the rest of us.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -   edited January 19
    @Nomenclature

    I'm sure your insults make you feel good but it doesn't improve your argument.

    "A caterpillar is a beginning developmental stage of a butterfly. That doesn't make a caterpillar the same thing as a butterfly."

    A caterpillar and a butterfly are still organisms/members of the same species.  
    We are talking about the human organism.  The human organism starts at zygote and moves through adulthood. Full development doesn't end until your 20s.  That's biology not semantics. So using your butterfly argument I guess you arguing your not fully human until your 20s.

    Now elaborating on your contradictions. I entered to conversation when you stated.

    "Nobody has the right to force an innocent BABY into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts."

    To which I argued that allows justification of killing anyone you declare is suffering.

    To argue this point you stated:
    "We're not talking about a someone. We're talking about a potential someone. We're talking about a partially developed fetus without a central nervous system."

    Well no you weren't talking about a fetus, you stated a BABY. 
    While I still think your wrong about a fetus, the contradiction is you changed to a less developed stage once you realized you are not ok with killing suffering babies. Or maybe you are and you can explain that.

    Moving to overpopulation.
    No I wasn't alive in the 19th century but there is something called books and historical writings.  Elon musk actually thinks underpopulation causes a much bigger threat.  Birth rates have been declining there's been no evidence that we will not be able to sustain for the foreseeable future as we become more and more efficient in energy production, food production, synthetics ect.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    I'm sure your insults make you feel good but it doesn't improve your argument

    My argument doesn't need improvement. I'm criticising your idea that we should take action which will lead directly to suffering, famine, dystopia, crime, and the potential extinction of the species, simply because you have decided to interpret a 2,000 year old work of fiction literally. When you abandon all reason and willfully put society at risk because of your religious beliefs, that becomes a problem for the rest of us. You're suggesting we force women to have kids, and you think it's my argument which needs improvement? I mean, just wow.

    Your posts are confusing and in no way am I interested in going back and forth with an obvious lunatic.

  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @YuuseiShikimura

    If you're fighting for abortion because you don't want others to dictate what you can and can't do with your body then I don't even want to have an argument with you.


    What a superb argument , I won't argue with you unless you agree with me ......
    Nomenclature
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -   edited January 19
    @Nomenclature

    I quoted your arguments directly no need to go back.  I never mentioned religion once.  Posts get long when I have to remind people of things they posted 2 seconds ago.

    No I'm forcing women to have kids, I'm just suggesting they can't kill ones that are already created.  Big difference.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    I quoted your arguments directly no need to go back.

    The site includes a specific mechanic for quotes so they can be illustrated clearly. It isn't my fault if you're not bright enough to figure out how to use it. 

     I never mentioned religion once.

    You didn't need to.

     Posts get long when I have to remind people of things they posted 2 seconds ago.

    The quote mechanic is not for reminding people of what they said two seconds ago. It's for you to illustrate clearly which parts of text you are making reference to.

    No I'm forcing women to have kids, I'm just suggesting they can't kill ones that are already created.  Big difference.

    Don't make me laugh. You are suggesting we force women who have become pregnant by accident or mistake to bear children they don't want. Every time a condom splits or a pill is ineffective you are saying the woman should be punished for at least the next twenty years. Even worse, the way you are trying to rationalise your deeply insane religious beliefs is by misusing language and swapping the word "fetus" -- which is a recognised medical term for a particular stage of development -- for words like "child", "kid" and "baby". It's insane. Your beliefs are completely, unequivocally insane.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -  
    The quote function is not that easy to use in the phone when you're quoting from multiple posts and using only sections of it.  I used quotation marks.

    Yes, because accidents don't allow us to kill innocent people. It's not like I'm leaving men out of the consequence.  They too must support the child.

    I'm not misusing language.  I correctly recognize fetus, baby, child, adult ect all as the human organism at different stages of development and I treat them equally under the law.
    You however are not recognizing a fetus as a human being which is biologically incorrect.

    @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    The quote function is not that easy to use in the phone

    Then ask Jesus for a computer.

    Yes, because accidents don't allow us to kill innocent people.

    There you go again, using brazenly ridiculous language. Terminating a clump of cells is not "killing innocent people". Your backwards old testament logic is just patently self-contradictory and insane, since of course the mother could quite feasibly die giving birth to the baby you want to force her to have.

    I'm not misusing language

    Lol. You're insane. I shudder to think that people like you get a vote.



  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Well it's terminating a human being which I consider people. Under biological definitions it is. 

    In the instance the mothers life is deemed to be in danger abortion would be on the table.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    Well it's terminating a human being

    Society has tacitly agreed that it is not yet a human being, otherwise women who have abortions would be charged with homicide.

    In the instance the mothers life is deemed to be in danger abortion would be on the table.

    It's a bit late to have an abortion during childbirth.

    Look, I'm sorry for being rude to you. You weren't rude to me so I should have shown you the same courtesy. But I find your views on the matter to be so disturbing that it frightens me. Even if I agreed with your pseudo-language and accepted that abortion is, in fact, homicide, then it still wouldn't change the fact that the planet could not sustain the resultant boom in population. Nor would it change the fact that many of these babies would be born into environments where, at best, they are not loved and, at worst, they are abused by their own parents. Even if I believed that abortion is evil then it is still the lesser evil compared to the alternatives.

  • OakTownAOakTownA 419 Pts   -  
    Currently, no one has the right to use another person's body without their permission. Banning abortion give a fetus a right that no one else has; to use the body of a pregnant person without that person's permission. Currently, at least in the US, one must give permission for one's organs to be donated after death. Why should a person who has the potential to become pregnant have fewer rights than a corpse?
  • @OakTownA
    Currently, no one has the right to use another person's body without their permission. Banning abortion give a fetus a right that no one else has; to use the body of a pregnant person without that person's permission. Currently, at least in the US, one must give permission for one's organs to be donated after death. Why should a person who has the potential to become pregnant have fewer rights than a corpse?

    No Sh*t the fetus has right no one else has. The reason a fetus has rights no one else has is by its lack of citizenship and there are no state laws written describing the type of lethal force that takes place between a fetus and its host / Ambassador. The rights are not due to lack of any control a woman has or may not have over her body in starting the limited process of immigration.

  • SonofasonSonofason 428 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    In what world are we allowed to kill someone because we think their suffering may be great.

    We're not talking about a someone. We're talking about a potential someone. We're talking about a partially developed fetus without a central nervous system. It's literally one step away from wanting to ban condoms.

    The backwards logic of anti-abortion campaigners is just surreal. Not only do you want to force women to have babies they don't want, don't love and can't take proper care of, but you don't seem to comprehend that the planet is already in the middle of a massive overpopulation crisis. Banning abortion would lead to a complete planetary disaster. You're so utterly out of touch with reality that you're dangerous. You're sitting in a comfortable, middle-class bubble in the most affluent country in the world, completely oblivious to the fact that half of the 8 billion people on Earth are already living on less than 5 dollars a day. We can't take care of the people we have already and you dummies want to create even more? Nine million people starving to death every year isn't enough for you? You want to make it 20 million? Or 30 million?

    Christ.

    Given what I know about you, I could not say that you yourself are anything more than a potential someone. Why does my unborn child have lesser a right to life than you do?  I assure you, you have a lesser right to life than my unborn child, because I am the one who grants the rights to those who think they have rights.  I can as easily take them away.

    You don't get to choose who may or may not be loved.  You do not get to choose who someone will love.  

    Banning abortion will not lead to a planetary disaster.  At worst, women who are not permitted to murder their unwanted child will take their own lives, making the world a much better place.  I'm for that.

    I don't care about 8 billion people.  I never will.  They could all die for all I care.  But I do care that there are those alive in this world who are so self righteous that they think its okay to kill innocent human beings, simply because they are inconvenient.  Sick really, if you ask me.


    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Sonofason
    Given what I know about you, I could not say that you yourself are anything more than a potential someone. Why does my unborn child have lesser a right to life than you do

    Lol. What? Well, because my mother decided not to abort her pregnancy. How about we start with that? 

    I assure you, you have a lesser right to life than my unborn child, because I am the one who grants the rights to those who think they have rights.  I can as easily take them away.

    I have absolutely no interest in your God complex and politely suggest you seek mental health treatment because it seems likely that you might be a narcissistic psychopath.

    You don't get to choose who may or may not be loved.  You do not get to choose who someone will love.

    What are you actually even talking about? Are you maybe just thick? If you force women to have children they don't want then it doesn't take a genius to figure out they might feasibly end up resenting them. I said nothing about choosing who may or may not be loved, so please Ziploc your mouth while you learn to interpret English like a normal person.

  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers



    Well it's terminating a human being which I consider people. Under biological definitions it is. 

    I think that's just something to anti abortion side say if anyone realistically believed such all women who aborted would would face life for jail

    How do you respond to the burning building scenario argument? A building is on fire and you are trying to escape , you can save 10 frozen embryos or one 5 year old girl but not both .....it seems pretty obvious which way you will answer 



    NomenclatureJohn_C_87OakTownA
  • @Dee
    How do you respond to the burning building scenario argument? A building is on fire and you are trying to escape , you can save 10 frozen embryos or one 5 year old girl but not both .....it seems pretty obvious which way you will answer  .........Off Topic........ Is how.

    The international malpractice of law Europe had started is simply pointed out by just asking for one thing. The cite of law that describes a criminal application to lethal force by the fetus as described directed against the motherof the fetus. Name just one, as it is this united state which makes abortion a constitutional topic globally, the point being it is not a religious issue at all but a legal argument over personal or united state constitution. 

    I think that's just something to anti abortion side say if anyone realistically believed such all women who aborted would would face life for jail. It is somethng a person who has been coached by legal teams might say about a law that has little or no standing on legal grounds by lack of united states constitutional right and how a state of the union is made We the people.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    First off this is not analogous to abortion as abortion is not saving one life over another it is the direct purposeful killing of a life.

    Now to answering your question.  That is a complicated situation because it involves a lot of stress and emotion.  If a 5 year old girl is crying for help and you can see her suffering its hard to say I wouldn't save the 5 year old but that doesn't mean I don't consider the others human or that I made the best decision.

    For example I'd probably bet many people would say the same for people in a coma.  That doesn't mean you don't consider people in comas people.

    It's not much different than saying you'd pay $10 to help save a starving  child up to 1000 times when you see one on the street but you may not donate 10000 dollars even for the promise that 1000 starving children are saved.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Society has agreed on immoral practices for as long as history has existed.


    "Its a bit late to have an abortion during childbirth."

    Medicine generally knows before birth if a pregnancy will be dangerous.  We can forsee things like preeclampsia ect.

    "Nor would it change the fact that many of these babies would be born into environments where, at best, they are not loved and, at worst, they are abused by their own parents."

    That's an argument for improving environments not for killing a life.  That's like saying instead of welfare if you hit a poverty level we'll just kill you to save resources. I mean your suffering anyway.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    First off this is not analogous to abortion as abortion is not saving one life over another it is the direct purposeful killing of a life.

    Dee makes a fine point, and it's one I've made also. If society viewed abortion as the "direct purposeful killing of a life" then women who have abortions would be charged with homicide. Since that doesn't happen, it's safe to conclude that -- at least from the perspective of law -- your language is inaccurate. 

    Now to answering your question.  That is a complicated situation because it involves a lot of stress and emotion. 

    It really isn't and I think deep down you know it isn't. It's a fine analogy and it's pretty obvious that everybody in their right mind would save the girl, not the frozen embryos.

    Dee
  • @MichaelElpers

    Abortion is not a United States Constitutional Right, Female-Specific Amputation is a United States Constitutional Right. Female-Specific Amputation is not a murder it describes a self-defense created around the issue of law which excludes a fetus from criminal wrong in improper use of lethal force by all fetus in every state in the United States Constitutional union.

    When ever there is law which does not equate to both sides of argument taken before the United States Constitution States loose are legal precedent to hold trials on such matters of regulation. Period.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Nomenclature

    It would have been nice if you read my full response.  On a sinking boat many people may also save a 5 year old girl over 2 adult men. Or in dees scenario a 5 year old girl over several coma patients.  Does that mean the men aren't people?

    Clearly I can't argue from a current societal perspective you are correct.  I'm saying society is incorrect just as they were when slavery and racism were a thing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @MichaelElpers
    Society has agreed on immoral practices for as long as history has existed.

    It is society which determines what is moral and what isn't, Michael. Not you.

    Medicine generally knows before birth if a pregnancy will be dangerous

    In some cases it does. In other cases the woman dies up to a year after delivery. Not every person even has access to a doctor, so again we can see that you're sat in your little middle class bubble, completely detached from reality. Approximately 0.3 million women already die each year as a direct result of childbirth. How high do you think that figure is going to be if you start forcing women to have kids?


    OakTownA
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
     On a sinking boat many people may also save a 5 year old girl over 2 adult men

    Yes, I agree. What is your point?

    Does that mean the men aren't people

    No, it means the men are assumed to have less life remaining than the girl, and are also more likely to survive on their own than the girl.

  • Name a law in any state that describes the lethal force a fetus applies against its host as a degree of murder? Name just one? First degree Murder the fetus amushes the mother?


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    I'm not saying I do determine morality for all but I can help change societies viewpoint through rationality.  Society can be wrong.

    I'm not sure if you took that as a worldwide figure or from certain countries.  Important to note Abortions also end in mothers deaths and have different rates depending on the area you are refering. In the U.S. it is lower than death from child birth, but it is also important to note many women choose to go through dangerous child birth knowing the dangers in advance. Without that I don't believe they'd be too different.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Nomenclature

    "No, it means the men are assumed to have less life remaining than the girl"

    You assumed the men were old what of theybwere in their 20s or 30s, I just said adult.  So you based it on cumulative life left to live?

    I guess you'd save 1 infant baby before you'd save potentially 20 elderly people.  That seems odd.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    I'm not saying I do determine morality for all but I can help change societies viewpoint through rationality. 

    But you're not being rational. You're being the opposite of rational. 

    Society can be wrong.

    It can, yes. But so can you.

    I'm not sure if you took that as a worldwide figure or from certain countries.

    It's worldwide (2017).

    Abortions also end in mothers deaths and have different rates depending on the area you are refering. 

    Of course, but this is a false equivalence because the mother chooses to have an abortion and is made aware of the potential risks. What you are proposing is the opposite, where the woman is forced to carry the baby regardless of the risks.

    DeeSkepticalOneJohn_C_87
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers


    First off this is not analogous to abortion as abortion is not saving one life over another it is the direct purposeful killing of a life.


    It's an attempt to demonstrate that even the anti crowd do not believe a fetus is  equivalent in the way they claim by using emotionally laden language as in saying a fetus is a "child" ,"person" , "baby "; if such were to hold how come that no one in your country is jailing women for life for the murder of a baby?

    Now to answering your question.  That is a complicated situation because it involves a lot of stress and emotion.  If a 5 year old girl is crying for help and you can see her suffering its hard to say I wouldn't save the 5 year old but that doesn't mean I don't consider the others human or that I made the best decision.

    But surely if you base the two as equivalent in the way you mean it then such a decision would surely without hesitation save the 5?

    For example I'd probably bet many people would say the same for people in a coma.  That doesn't mean you don't consider people in comas people.

    But the problem here is if all life has value in the way you put it would you not save 5 in a coma over the one who is not?


    It's not much different than saying you'd pay $10 to help save a starving  child up to 1000 times when you see one on the street but you may not donate 10000 dollars even for the promise that 1000 starving children are saved.

    Money normally changes everything would you donate a $1000 to stop a woman having an abortion?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    You assumed the men were old.
    I didn't assume anything. You used the word "men", which told me they are of at least an age four times that of the girl. Men, girl and fetus all refer to different stages of human development, and when you start misusing them interchangeably in order to lend rhetorical weight to an irrational argument, you're eventually going to tie yourself up in knots. A fetus is not the same thing as a child, and a girl is not the same thing as a man.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1000 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Nomenclature

    "Of course, but this is a false equivalence because the mother chooses to have an abortion and is made aware of the potential risks. What you are proposing is the opposite, where the woman is forced to carry the baby regardless of the risks"

    There wasn't an equivalency being made.  The point is you were basically saying abortion saves mothers and childbirth kills them.  If abortion ends in a similar amount of deaths your childbirth stat is completely irrelevant. Pregnancy has dangers no matter which method you use.

    Also that's not what I'm proposing.  I'm proposing the women carries a pregnancy she is responsible for unless medical professionals have reason to believe childbirth is unsafe.

    If they don't have access to medical care they may not have access to safe abortion practices either.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch